Posted on 02/29/2012 1:43:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Unlike Bill Clinton, President Obama admits he inhaled!. "Frequently," he said. "That was the point."
People laugh when politicians talk about their drug use. The audience laughed during a 2003 CNN Democratic presidential primary debate when John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean admitted smoking weed.
Yet those same politicians oversee a cruel system that now stages SWAT raids on people's homes more than 100 times a day. People die in these raids -- some weren't even the intended targets of the police.
Neill Franklin once led such raids. The 33-year Maryland police veteran, now executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, locked up hundreds of people for drugs and felt good about it.
"We really thought that these drugs made people evil," he told me.
But 10 years ago Franklin decided that drugs -- even hard drugs -- do much less harm to Americans than does the drug war.
"Drugs can be -- and are in many cases -- problematic. But the policies that we have in place to prohibit their use are 10 times more problematic."
The raids helped change his mind. "We end up with kids being shot ... search warrants being served on the wrong home, innocent people on the other side of the door thinking that they are protecting their home."
And the level of drug use remains about the same.
Still, most Americans support the drug war. Paul Chabot, White House drug adviser to Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton, told me: "We should be kicking down more doors. ... They're kicking the door of somebody who's a violent person."
Violent? People who get high are rarely violent. The violence occurs because when something's illegal, it is sold only on the black market. And that causes crime. Drug dealers can't just call the cops if someone tries to steal their supply. So they form gangs and arm themselves to the teeth.
"We have the violence of these gangs competing for market share, and people get hurt," said Franklin.
Especially kids. Drug gangs constantly look for new recruits.
"Some of these gangs have better recruitment programs than Fortune 500 companies. They know what to say to kids."
People think that if drugs were legal, there would be more recruiting of kids. Franklin says the opposite is true.
"Prohibition causes that. We don't have kids on the corner (saying), 'Pssst, I got a fifth of Jack Daniel's.'"
Kids rarely peddle liquor, and there's little violence around liquor sales because alcohol is legal. There was lots of violence before 1933, but that was because Prohibition forbade liquor sales. Prohibition gave us Al Capone.
"Organized crime existed well before Prohibition," Chabot replied.
That's true. But much less of it. The murder rate rose when alcohol was banned. It dropped when Prohibition was repealed.
"If we were to do away with our drug laws ... we know drug usage numbers will skyrocket," Chabot said.
But we don't know that.
It's logical to assume that, were it not for drug prohibition, drug abuse would be rampant. But 10 years ago, Portugal decriminalized every drug -- crack, heroin, you name it. The number of abusers actually declined.
Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, said that before decriminalization "we had a huge problem with drug use ... around 100,000 people hooked on heroin."
Then they started treating drug use more like a parking ticket. People caught with drugs get a slap on the wrist, sometimes a fine.
Independent studies have found the number of people in Portugal who say they regularly do drugs stayed about the same. And the best news, said Goulao: "Addiction itself decreased a lot."
At first, police were skeptical of the law, but Joao Figueira, chief inspector of Lisbon's drug unit, told me that decriminalization changed lots of minds.
"The level of conflicts on the street are reduced. Drug-related robberies are reduced. And now the police are not the enemies of the consumers!"
And teen drug use is down.
All good news. But in American and in most of the world, the drug war continues, thousands are murdered and in ghettos the police are enemies of the people.
Governments should wake up and learn something from the Portuguese.
So where is that list of benefits to both society and the individual since your buddies the 1960’s radical leftists popularized the recreational use of drugs?
Where is that list of benefits?
You keep flapping your gums, but all you keep saying is:
“I want to do drugs legally and to hell with all the damage it causes to others.”
You are a typical, leftist, self-centered liberaltarian.
You are a troll.
Go back to leftist cesspool that is the DU where you and your liberal ideology can bathe in indolent, drugged fantasies about the utopia of Amsterdam, where the streets are littered with burned-out druggies like NYC is covered with with food wrappers.
Do you see how silly is the basic point in this last post of yours?
Recreational drug problems cause problems.
The increased use of recreational drugs since the 1960’s has increased those problems.
Keeping drugs illegal has not eliminated those problems.
Therefore, make them legal (and far more prevalent) and the problems may go away.
How could someone be so foolish as to truly believe that string of illogic?
Here is the logical conclusion to your argument:
Therefore, if you make the recreational use of drugs even more prevalent, those problems will continue to increase and they will increase not at the same rate but exponentially as those people who will not try drugs because they are illegal will try drugs and a percentage of them will be harmed by that usage.
That is how logic works.
But not in the liberal mind that has only its own selfish interests at heart.
Your points are valid. Because of the nature of man there will be no utopia (perfect solution) in this world.
Sometimes though, I just want to get the “test” over and see how low we can go............................
On the other hand I really don’t want to experience what it is like when God stops restraining evil.
Where is that list of benefits?
Where is the post where I claimed any such benefits? The article supports my statement that decriminalization in Portugal had benefits.
Keeping drugs illegal has not eliminated those problems.
Therefore, make them legal (and far more prevalent) and the problems may go away.
That's not my argument. Re-read what I wrote (above, in bold).
I’m pretty sure Obammie the Commie will win re-election.
If he does, we will see in the next four years just how far and fast a once great nation can sink into the sewer.
You’ll have your answer then.
Have a bug-out plan.
You claimed that the harm done to society is because of the illegality of the drugs and that if recreational drug usage were simply made legal, society would benefit.
Amsterdam is a hellhole. For thousands of individuals and for its society at large. No benefit there.
So you’ve acknowledged that since the recreational use of drugs made popular and socially acceptable by your ideological forebears (the 1960’s radically self-centered) the result has been overall damage to those individuals unfortunate enough to have been ruined by drugs (Google “meth addiction”) and to society on the whole.
Yet you want to legalize drugs and thereby guarantee that recreational drug usage will become more prevalent, which will result in even greater harm to individuals and society (which impacts those individuals who do not use drugs).
You also stated that there should be no restrictions on which drugs are illegal and when I quoted Ron Paul who made the same statement, you implicitly agreed.
So what other human behaviors should not be restricted?
Should the state sanction euthanasia for any reason whatsoever?
And, if so, why not have state-sanctioned Russian Roulette so that those people who decide to off themselves can do so in a manner that enables state-sanctioned gambling?
It would be like the new televised poker games that you, just with people who were going to commit suicide or euthanasia blowing their brains out.
“That’s absurd!”
Yes, it is. I am using the absurd to point out the absurd. And my argument to you is the same argument I use for those who support same-sex marriage.
Those who support same-sex marriage say that restricting marriage to those of opposite sexes is unfair and that people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. They also argue that it is a form of discrimination and therefore a violation of the US Constitution. I argue that it is not a violation of the USC but that it is the will of the people carried out through legislation. I further argue that, if it were, then it would be unconstitutional to legislate against any marriage. Brothers could marry brothers. Sisters could marry sisters. Fathers could marry sons, and mothers could marry daughters. And, of course, why not polygamy?
I ask if they support all of this and they say no of course not, only homosexual couples. That is where they lose the argument, because they contradict themselves. They do not oppose setting the rules. They only oppose those rules when others set them and they don’t like them. They believe in restrictions of some sort, even they won’t acknowledge it.
You and the rest of the liberaltarians (not libertairans, liberaltarians) also defeat your own argument for the same reason.
I have posited many scenarios of “what else should not be restricted” and you gave no logical legitimate response, because you know, if you have any conservatism in you whatsoever, that you do not agree with completely unrestricted behavior. What this means is that you acknowledge and believe you benefit from traditional Judeo-Christian morality and justice in many aspects of your life, and that you do not want those abandoned because you know the societal fallout from completely lifting all morality and green-flagging unfettered individual behavior would reduce America to a hellhole. If you dislike nannies, then I’d have to assume that you also understand that if America reached such a state of degradation and decay, you are fully aware that the iron fist of the state would smash down hard on individual liberty to ‘fix’ that societal problem and our liberties would be gone forever. This, as I stated earlier, is why constitutional American patriots who support the Founding Fathers believe in the need for voluntary restraint of individual behavior so that liberty will not become license, which is a license inevitably revoked by the State.
You know that you do not want brothels and crack houses operating legally next door do you. You do not want people coming in to your office on meth and heroin. You do not want pornography and sex toys on every channel and on the checkout stand at every store where you and your family will not be able to avoid it. I find it hard that you want to walk with your family past drug addicts slouched against the walls of 1 out of 2 blocks that you walk by or that you want children in school to have even easier access to those drugs that will destroy them and break the hearts of their families. You do believe in restrictions, just your own set of restrictions that will enable you to indulge in a behavior that you want to without fear of prosecution. And then you admit that lifting the selective set of restrictions that you oppose will harm individuals and society, yet you still say they should be lifted.
As I said at the beginning, this liberaltarian argument is nothing more than the self-indulgence the 1960’s radicals imposed upon us for their own decadent pleasure, at the expense of our national culture. Most probably were not aware that that breakdown of our culture was planned and implemented by communists and socialists with the express goal of destroying our nation and creating a vacuum of morality, history, ideology, and prosperity...a vacuum that they planned to fill with the Iron Fist of the State.
But not the ONLY harm - me, post #20: "I've never denied the damage done by drug use - nor by alcohol use. The point is that banning alcohol or other drugs has not been shown to decrease that damage, but clearly does damage of its own."
and that if recreational drug usage were simply made legal, society would benefit.
The experience of Portugal with decriminalization (as discussed in the article) supports that statement.
Amsterdam is a hellhole. For thousands of individuals and for its society at large.
Baloney.
"In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[25][26] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[26]
"The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.[27]"
25. "EMCDDA Annual Report 2009, ch 3 page 43". Emcdda.europa.eu. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2011-04-20.
26. "Microsoft Word - Swedish drug control FINAL_14feb_merged.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-04-20.
27. "EMCDDA: Mortality due to drug-related deaths in European countries". Emcdda.europa.eu. 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2011-04-20.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Results_of_the_drug_policy
People damage themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods - should we ban those too? Or should we remain a nation founded on liberty? I choose liberty.
Yet you want to legalize drugs and thereby guarantee that recreational drug usage will become more prevalent, which will result in even greater harm to individuals
That doesn't necessarily follow from increased use. For example, legalization will remove the incentives for users to use in ways that make abuse and addiction likelier - like getting as high as possible when one gets high (as drinkers did during Prohibition) and spending lots of time planning one's next high.
and society (which impacts those individuals who do not use drugs).
Society is impacted when people damage themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods - should we ban those too? Or should we remain a nation founded on liberty? I choose liberty.
You also stated that there should be no restrictions on which drugs are illegal and when I quoted Ron Paul who made the same statement, you implicitly agreed.
Paul and I each wear pants, too - what of it?
So what other human behaviors should not be restricted?
Should the state sanction euthanasia for any reason whatsoever?
And, if so, why not have state-sanctioned Russian Roulette so that those people who decide to off themselves can do so in a manner that enables state-sanctioned gambling?
It would be like the new televised poker games that you, just with people who were going to commit suicide or euthanasia blowing their brains out.
“That’s absurd!”
Yes, it is. I am using the absurd to point out the absurd.
One can oppose intentional suicide as legal entertainment (as I do) without thereby agreeing to all government action against any degree of self-harm. See above on people damaging themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods.
I have posited many scenarios of “what else should not be restricted” and you gave no logical legitimate response,
Bullsh!t.
because you know, if you have any conservatism in you whatsoever, that you do not agree with completely unrestricted behavior.
Of course not - that's your straw man. I support resricting rights-violating behavior (where rights means real individual rights, not fictitious "rights" like the liberals' "right" to health care or the statists' "right" to live in a drug-free society - which drug criminalization hasn't and can't achieve anyway).
This, as I stated earlier, is why constitutional American patriots who support the Founding Fathers believe in the need for voluntary restraint of individual behavior
And as I've stated several times with no response from you, there's nothing voluntary about banning things.
so that liberty will not become license, which is a license inevitably revoked by the State.
You know that you do not want brothels and crack houses operating legally next door do you.
As I've said, I support zoning regulations.
You do not want people coming in to your office on meth and heroin.
Nor drunk; I support employers' right to test for any drug.
You do not want pornography and sex toys on every channel
There will always be a market demand for porn-free channels - and TVs will always have off buttons.
and on the checkout stand at every store where you and your family will not be able to avoid it. I find it hard that you want to walk with your family past drug addicts slouched against the walls of 1 out of 2 blocks that you walk by
Baseless hysteria - we don't encounter alcohol addicts anywhere near that often.
or that you want children in school to have even easier access to those drugs that will destroy them and break the hearts of their families.
Since kids report that they can now get marijuana more easily than cigarettes or beer, it follows that the best way to restict their access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market).
You do believe in restrictions, just your own set of restrictions that will enable you to indulge in a behavior that you want to without fear of prosecution. And then you admit that lifting the selective set of restrictions that you oppose will harm individuals and society, yet you still say they should be lifted.
People damage themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods - should we ban those too? Or should we remain a nation founded on liberty? I choose liberty.
As I said at the beginning, this liberaltarian argument is nothing more than the self-indulgence the 1960’s radicals imposed upon us for their own decadent pleasure, at the expense of our national culture. Most probably were not aware that that breakdown of our culture was planned and implemented by communists and socialists with the express goal of destroying our nation and creating a vacuum of morality, history, ideology, and prosperity...a vacuum that they planned to fill with the Iron Fist of the State.
Legal alcohol has done us less harm than Prohibition, and legal drugs will do us less harm than the War On Drugs.
Go and move to Amsterdam, if you really believe it is such a paradise.
Anyone who has been comments on what a cesspool it is.
Yet you and the rest of the liberaltarians want to turn American into Americadam.
Leave and take your self-indulgent decadence with you.
The rest of us are trying to save a country that is falling into ruin thanks to the destruction of your buddies the 1960’s radicals who were radically self-centered.
I’m going to copy-and-paste and reply to your comments just so that you can see how annoying and stupid it is.
But this:
“Baseless hysteria”
is too priceless.
That is exactly what your leftist buddies, the 1960’s radicals kept saying about those of us who warned against the evils of communism and socialism.
So far, you are in great company, with all those leftists and collectivists who tear down America by destroying our culture. And when decadence and ruined lives is the result, THEY (as you will be) are the ones calling for greater governmental control.
Again, you’d be more at home at the DemocRAT Underground, troll. Why not leave FR and go home?
I’ll post detailed replies to your inane commentary later.
“I choose liberty.”
...he said, pounding his chest, waving the flag, and looking skyward.
Now that is just hilarious.
Drug addiction is not liberty, it is slavery. And it is the worst type of slavery because it owns you for the rest of your life.
And you and your self-indulgent cronies want to cast that broad net of slavery over thousands upon thousands or people (as any realistically thinking Patriot knows would be the result) and thump your chest trying to convince everyone that this type of addiction, this type of self-indulgent behavior that would require yet another iron-fisted bureaucracy is somehow supporting of “liberty.”
Put the crack pipe down and go back to DU, troll.
Anyone who has been comments on what a cesspool it is.
You think you've met everyone who's been to Amsterdam?
Baseless hysteria - we don't encounter alcohol addicts anywhere near that often.
But this:
“Baseless hysteria”
is too priceless.
That is exactly what your leftist buddies, the 1960’s radicals kept saying about those of us who warned against the evils of communism and socialism.
I gave a reason why your scenario is baseless hysteria - a reason I'm not surprised you're evading.
I’ll post detailed replies to your inane commentary later.
I look forward to it - but I won't hold my breath.
Not everyone who uses a drug becomes addicted to it.
is not liberty, it is slavery. And it is the worst type of slavery because it owns you for the rest of your life.
Wrong as usual - 12-step meetings all across the country are full of people who have gotten the better of their addictions and quit.
What do you propose to do about the people enslaved by alcohol addictions? Do you support banning that addictive drug?
Wow. Talk about a brilliant non sequitur.
Funny how you ask for specifics then go floating off into generalizations.
“Baseless hysteria.”
No, it isn’t.
Is what has happened to our teenagers through promiscuity (encouraged by your buddies the 1960’s radicals) with higher STDs, higher pregnancy, higher abortion, higher suicide, baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.
Is higher drug addiction in any area that enables recreational drug usage baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.
Is the destruction to individual lives and to the lives of families that results when someone becomes addicted to drugs baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.
You are completely incapable of extrapolation and logical extension. You need to put the joint down. The weed is rotting your brain.
People who go through 12-step programs (I’m sure you know many of them) will be the first to tell you after they have gotten off drugs that they are addicted for life. Just one usage will set the off and it is that first usage after recovery that they fear most, because they know it is the recommencing of their addiction.
The fact that you believe people who were addicted and got control of their drug/alcohol usage through a 12-step program are free of addiction and that their lives return to what they were before they began using drugs and alcohol should be all the evidence that anyone on this board needs that you have no idea what you’re talking about and that your only concern is being able to go to the liquor store and purchase weed, cocaine, LSD, crank, heroin, or meth to your heart’s content. And that if 20% of the population experiments with these easily accessible drug and only 5% of them become addicted, well that’s too bad. To hell with them and to hell with the taxpayers that have to pay for their treatment and unemployment because, damn it all, you want to get stoned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.